No offense intended, Walker. As you said, we're talking opinion and interpretation, both of which can be changed. Don't know as we'll ever see any real facts on what we're talking about.
I think, particularly as it effected the rice and cotton culture in South Carolina, you need to re-evaluate the concepts of slave vs hired labor. Hired labor was tried with no success. I at no time alluded to working in the sun, where did you get this? Are you twisting this to try and show a possible racial bias on my part? I did point out that the slave labor was more suited for working in the Lowcountry due to his inherited trait in many of an immunity to malaria.

I'm unfamiliar with when hired labor was tried with no success; perhaps you can help me with this?

Working in the sun and a genetic resistance to semitropical diseases are both part of the same myth that the black man must be used because he is better suited to the conditions. No. I'm not implying a racial bias -- just probing the long-accepted idea that black labor was necessary because it was genetically more capable of withstanding the conditions. It might be true, but I've never seen the idea challenged. It's something that is said, accepted and passed over.

Finally, "condescending"? That wasn't the intention. I found the statement very pointed and wished only to share it. It applies to me as well as to you and everyone else. I draw a hard line between what is my opinion and what is a fact. Everything I say ought to be understood as my opinion, unless I come up with a number or a page in a book that shows it to be a fact.

We're in an area where there are no facts. I'm here to have my opinions challenged and to challenge the opinions of others. This is a kitchen-table thread. Nevermind the stove; dinner is in there.